About this Show

Washington Journal

News/Business. Live morning call-in program with government officials, political leaders, and journalists.

NETWORK

DURATION
03:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 91 (627 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Washington 26, Fbi 25, U.s. 16, Us 14, China 13, Obama 12, Cia 11, America 11, Israel 11, Syria 11, New York 9, Florida 8, Benghazi 8, Afghanistan 8, Petraeus 7, Obama Administration 6, Clinton 6, Egypt 6, Benjamin Pauker 6, Libya 6,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Washington Journal    News/Business. Live morning call-in program with  
   government officials, political leaders, and journalists.  

    November 13, 2012
    7:00 - 10:00am EST  

7:00am
how intelligence community is being affected by the resignation of david petraeus as head of the c.i.a. then former senator evan bayh on the fiscal cliff. then senior editor of foreign policy magazine will be on. ♪ host: good morning, welcome to "washington journal." the fbi investigation that led to the resignation of general david petraeus has expanded to general john allen. the impact of all this on the intelligence community and national security will be part of several hearings on capitol hill later this week. lawmakers return to washington today amid a shake-up of the
7:01am
president obama national security team, facing the looming issue of the so-called fiscal cliff. that is where we want to begin today this morning. president obama will meet later on with labor leaders who are insisting that the president not compromise on cuts to medicare and social security. what is your take on this? avoiding this -- avoiding the fiscal cliff? host: remember, you can send us a clear message, post your comments on facebook, or send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. courtesy of the newseum, washington, front page of that newspaper and many of the newspapers this morning, including "the washington post,"
7:02am
liberal groups prepare for an entitlement fight. this is what zachary goldfarb rights. -- writes.
7:03am
host: there is what president obama said in the past that he might do. we're turning to you outside washington today to get your take on this. can it be part of a grand bargain to avoid a fiscal cliff? bob, your first. caller: i never understood, when you are eligible of age to go on medicare, that that is the simultaneous with social security. i do not understand why those
7:04am
are staggered. for all the republicans out there, i agree, i am a fiscal conservative, that the very least to raise the eligibility age from 65 to 67 in medicare should absolutely be on the table. i would like to say, i do not get why we do not use our institutions, government institutions. to allow for people like myself, i pay about $7,000 per year out of pocket or an individual policy that i do not use.
7:05am
i might use $200 per year out of 7000. if they give that money to medicare so that i can buy into medicare, i am 54, and spend my next however many years prior to going on medicare paying into medicare on an individual policy, i bet you that there are millions like me read the government could raise so much money and i do not understand why it is not being talked about or presented. host: what if there was an agreement that said anyone over 55, we're raising the eligibility? caller: you look like a reasonable person yourself. i think i qualify. i would be more than happy. i am a democrat.
7:06am
host of you voted for the president? caller: -- host: you voted for the president? caller: i did. host: erica, your thoughts? caller: thank you for c-span. i think that whatever congress decides, we have to be down with. the republicans, they do not want to raise taxes. raising taxes, cutting spending, one group cannot shoulder the whole thing. they cannot take all the taxes to get our financial health in order. i think you have to do spending cuts reasonably. there is waste in health care system. you can find things to cut. there is waste, but you have to
7:07am
do it now. i think most people would agree with that. host: before we hear from andy in port richey, florida, let me read from this from "the washington post." host: andy, with that in the mix, what do you think? retirement reform on the table? caller: i feel that the real problem, anyway, is that when you have jobs in this country and you work for, say a big company, something like that, they pay for half of your social security and medicare and you pay for the other half out of your tax money. you send jobs out of the country, who is going to pay for it?
7:08am
these jobs have to be brought back here. are they kidding me? host: how does that relate to our topic? caller: medicare and medicaid, if there were more jobs here. host: so, do not touch medicare and medicaid? caller: got to bring jobs back. the people would pay for it, the companies would pay for it. host: we will keep talking about all of this this morning. president obama meeting with labor leaders this morning. here is a list of who will be at this meeting from "the associated press."
7:09am
host: i want to go back to the news that we started with, general john allen. "the washington post" has that story this morning. they write this --
7:10am
host: the latest developments have shaken up the carefully chosen plans for the military and intelligence team in the second term. secretary of defense leon panetta put out a statement about this statement, saying that while the matter is under investigation, and before the facts are determined, general allan will remain as commander. "his leadership has been instrumental in the significant progress that has been made in bringing greater security to the afghan people and making sure that afghanistan never becomes a safe haven again for terrorists. he is entitled to due process in this matter." that was the statement from leon panetta about general allan. also in the news, the chairwoman
7:11am
of the senate intelligence committee said yesterday that she would put out a subpoena for the general's testimony, if need be. she said she would go as far as to order a vote on the floor of the senate if the administration does not cooperate. part of the hearings that the intelligence -- intelligence committee will be holding later this week. the house foreign affairs committee also has a hearing, although the intelligence proceeding hearings will be closed. this is a look at who is testifying this morning from "the washington times." "the following are scheduled to testify on thursday during this closed door hearing." there is the list, right there.
7:12am
host: so, those are the folks that will be testifying on thursday. also, other news on this, the baltimore -- "the baltimore sun" this morning. "18 new of the affair before the election -- one aid of the -- knew of the affair before the election." host: all of this will be our topic later this morning. we will be talking with ronald kessler, an author who has written books about the fbi and the cia. back to our topic, avoiding the
7:13am
fiscal cliff, do you cut entitlement spending? and become a port richey, florida. -- andy, democratic caller, port richey, florida. excuse me, let me move on to nick. caller: every time they talk about these in congress, they will not cut their pay, not cut their staff, will not cut any federal employees, which is exactly what all that money is. immigration, those people are costing the american taxpayers' dollars. host: you say that that is exactly where it is going, the number that folks put out there and that experts are saying is that that is not where it is all at, that that would get you very far. but that the real drivers are these entitlement programs.
7:14am
host: i have a friend who works on c130's. they had an $800 garbage can and they were not allowed to ask if they could take a cut in military pay, because it was disrespectful. that is how congress treats the american people. actually, they work for us, so they should start to cut their pay, their staffs. think about that. explain to me why they should make more than the average working person. host: do you think that that really drive down the deficit? caller: over the next 20 years if they cut state and senator pay, the juno that in the state of illinois you get $25,000 -- did you know that in the state of illinois they get $25,000 to eat? we should tell them that they
7:15am
are buying all this debt, well we do not need you. keep the paper, we will keep the gold and see you later. host: all right, betty, pa., independent caller. what do you think? caller: i absolutely do not think they should cut social security. i am 81 years old. every time republicans get power, that is the first thing they want to do. social security is not part of the federal budget. there is no reason for it to be touched. the only part of the budget for social security is what the government owes. every time they need money, they-if into it, which is why it is broke. they do not have the money to pay this back, they're asking us to give up what we are owed. host: what if they did not touch it for people 70 and older, that this is something that comes
7:16am
later on? caller: they should never have touched it,. . they owe people the money? they should pay it. host: harry reid agrees with betty. he told reporters that he is open to a deal, but that we are not going to mess with social security. the obama 2013 budget would reduce spending on health care programs by $630 billion over a decade by reducing payments to drug companies in part, as well as an increased premium for some retirees starting in 2017. robert, md., independent caller. we are talking about entitlement spending. should it be part of a grand bargain to avoid the fiscal cliff? caller: i hope that you will allow me to give you a brief history, and then we will come to the president -- to the president. under abraham lincoln and
7:17am
ulysses s. grant, the president in the 1890's, under hoover, each of these people had to deal with the same problems. in they withdrew money from the federal treasury for their own purposes and then they tried to exploit the working class people. from 1980 until the present time we saw a transfer of wealth out of the social security system and the medicare system, money being borrowed to finance these projects, and then they blame the people who are being victimized. this is not something new. seven times this has happened in our history. each of these times, these people who are buying off politicians, they do the same thing over and over, then they want to blame the poor people and the working class people for the problems they have created. they want to shut down medicare
7:18am
and social security. this is nothing new. host: that was robert, an independent caller. facebook comments for you right here -- host: two comments from viewers who do not want entitlement spending to be part of any kind of package. stocks were nearly unchanged on monday after a day of uneven trading plagued by investor fears of the approaching fiscal cliff. this message from twitter -- host: next we will go to lisa, new jersey. republican caller, go ahead. caller: for three years obama
7:19am
care has affected medicare. i was stressed out about that. back then it was $550 billion to $560 billion, but now i know more. president obama signed obama care, as it is known, and my insurance went up 20%. personally, i am an immigrant, i do not care about nationality, but i know a nurse in the state and she knows that they abused those emergency rooms. people coming in with minor stuff. they have out of wedlock kids in this country who are getting a free ride. where are the rights for the
7:20am
low-income white people? my mother never and still does woe is me attitude, that you should all feel sorry for me, and a large segment of society is built in to taxpayer welfare money. host: we got your point. labor leaders, meeting with president obama today. mrs. "the new york times." -- this is "the new york times." host
7:21am
host: so, that is the story from "the new york times" this morning. "the wall street journal" has the headline as well, "the president needs to persuade the left." let me give you some other news as we continue to talk about this issue this morning of entitlement spending. let me go back to the story
7:22am
about general john allen. here is "the washington post." most of the as asking for that confirmation to be x -- host: he is asking for the confirmation to be expedited. "the pentagon was still reviewing the e-mail and declined to comment on the relationship."
7:23am
host: also next to that story is a story from "the boston globe." "kerry considered as possible defense chief." "the president is considering asking john kerry to join the national security team." host: so, that is the latest on that. also this morning, "nancy pelosi considers leaving post as house democratic leader." "the decision could come as early as tomorrow, wednesday."
7:24am
washington journal will be live from capitol hill tomorrow with several lawmakers from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. to keep you updated on what is happening this week in washington. the looming fiscal cliff, that is what we are talking about with all of you today. how do we avoid it, should entitlement spending be part of the package? james, go head. caller: i had to retire because of back problems or whenever, but i do not get disability, i would not apply for it, it is an entitlement. it is ludicrous to ask people in my age bracket, people who pay for their medicare -- that is what people are not saying. we paid for it for a long time. many of us are sick, we are not asking for anyone to help us
7:25am
along. we are not asking for the government, we paid for this. what it really is is a pyramid scheme. you have to get people working in this country so that they can pay in. it is not the people cheating the system. years ago we used to get articles about retirees in my condition. eating dog food. remember that? as it was cheaper than groceries. is that what this country has turned into? all of the veterans -- this general petraeus thing, i am very much ashamed that a leader of that man's competence would do something to ruin his career. as you can say, under the military code of justice, that is a crime. host: mark, how do we avoid the fiscal cliff? independent caller, hollywood,
7:26am
florida. you are on the air. caller: thank you. most people do not realize that the president makes $250,000 per year. if he paid, no one would have a problem. it would solve everything very simply. host: all right. edward, clinton, michigan. go ahead. caller: i have listened to this for a while. the thing that i look at is -- i do not know what kind of future my children will have. that is a bit of a disappointment for me. the democrats continually preach that they are for the poor, the minorities, for this group for that group, but the problem is that most of their agenda tends to keep people in poverty.
7:27am
and keep them voting for the same people over and over again. i say, let the fiscal cliff happen. let the american people experience what the chinese experience when mao had 60 million of them starve to death. host: can i get your thoughts, as a republican, of the front page of "the financial times." "republicans shift stance over taxing the wealthy."
7:28am
host: what do you think? caller: i believe that jesus said it best, let cesar be thatr, and what is god's, is god's. when they put the income-tax system in, they should have put it in the constitution that there is a ceiling to it. just like a minimum wage, there should be a maximum wage. i do not think that any politician should be getting more than $1,000 per week, because let's face it, i do not see anyone in the private sector earning more than that unless they are a high paid guest:. -- high paid ceo. they say they get these degrees, go to school? fine.
7:29am
$1,000 per week. host: "the baltimore sun" has a story, "boehner ways next moves." this is from "the wall street journal." "post office hint of gop path." host: "she fit a profile." so, more on leadership, which both sides will be voting for this week when they return to washington on who will be their leaders. so, we will continue to watch that story for u.s. well. part of the mix to avoid the
7:30am
fiscal cliff is these jobless benefits. that is the headline in the politics and policy section of "the washington post." "over 2 million americans could lose their jobless benefits before the end of the year." host: susan, michigan, what do you think? should we cut medicare and social security? caller: absolutely not. absolutely not. host: why not? caller: i am a woman who has finally reached the age of social security. all the years the work, this money was taken out of my paycheck. i was told from a very young
7:31am
age that when i reached a fine age of the period where you retire and you can get social security, that all the money that i paid in would be refunded to me. this money is not to be touched, not to be changed. for my generation, or the generations that are coming after i am gone, to mess with social security is absolutely a travesty. it should never, ever retouched. host: president obama, meeting with labor leaders today, as well as other liberal groups, and also planning to meet with business leaders. here is a full-page ad this morning taken out by the business roundtable, quoting about the fiscal
7:32am
cliff. "we are immobilized, the national debt increases about $3 million every minute. our leadership needs to adapt to the economic realities, ticket disciplined approach, and most importantly act." that is the message from several of these c o's, that the congress and the white house needs to do something to deal with the fiscal cliff. in other news, courtesy of "the houston chronicle," "american production will surpass the saudis within eight years." on the same story in "the wall street journal," "america is on track to surpass saudi arabia by 2020." that is also a front-page story in the washington times as well. below the fold, a piece written by guide taylor.
7:33am
-- guy taylor. president obama, traveling overseas on saturday to several countries, including burma. this is after he meets with congressional leaders on friday. that is why we are turning to all of you today to discuss this. john, ohio, what do you think? president obama, when he meets with congressional leaders on friday, should he say that he is open to cuts to medicare and social security? caller: medicare and social security should not be cut. there are other ways to deal with it. you can cut welfare, you can cut wigs. while he is in asia, president obama should look at the pay of the average ceo to the employee
7:34am
is 10 to one in japan. in american it -- in america it is 300 to one. social security, i am a small business owner and have paid into it already. i do not believe they should touch it. host: you do not think that they should touch it? caller: no, ma'am. host: how do they bring down the deficit? caller: they need to bring down defense spending. find out what they have been doing with our money. we do not have nowhere, no idea of the deficit. host: let's hear from amanda in wilson, n.c.. caller: i think that everyone should work together, all of
7:35am
these elected officials. everyone should work together to help the people. host: everyone should compromise? caller, i think they should. they were not elected to fight with each other. to help out the public, help them have a better life. every president that we have been under, we have been under debt. we elected them to do their jobs, not bicker like little children. host: "the daily news" in new york has this piece -- "we want out of the united states, according to 100,000 americans." "talk about sore losers."
7:36am
host: let me show you the list of states where these petitions came from. it of course includes texas and goes on and on. wu will take a look at that as we go to from royal, virginia. you have got to turn down your television, all right? i will put you on hold and we will come back to you in just a minute. a reminder, if you do not turn down your television, we get the annoying and confusing feedback. here is "the washington times" this morning. these are still the races that are not called.
7:37am
arizona's second district. california's 52nd district. california's seventh district. north carolina's seventh district. called on monday was arizona ninth district. so, that is from "the washington times" this morning. the headline, "to west allen, west." he is refusing to concede the house reelection battle. six days later. that is "the washington times" with an update. front royal, virginia, republican, let me go back to you. go ahead. caller: my thought is that i am a republican, but also an american. america voted for obama. we need to pull together as a country. all of the people in the
7:38am
congress and the senate need to pull together and think about what all of the american people need and what is good for this country. if that means that right now republicans have to been in a little bit, they have to do it and fix this budget so that we can move forward as a country. host: taxing the wealthiest americans, is that enough? caller: now, it is not, but we have to make a move forward, working together, and if we do not stop fighting and work together, we will not do anything. host: so, does that mean the democrats, also, leading -- leaning forward a little bit? caller: i am a republican, but my mother is 84, i do not want that to be touched right now. i wanted to stay the same for
7:39am
the future. this country is changing, the world is changing. things can change, but right now things are staying the same and we have to figure out a way to fix all of this, america. there are good people in places that should be able to bring our country back to the way it needs to be. that should be the goal of the democratic party, the republican party, quit fighting, work for us. stop fire wall and start over. people are sick of the fighting back and forth. let's work together. that is what we need to do. we need to think about the american people, all of them. host: all right. speaking of campaign 2012, the richmond times dispatch this morning, "george allen, no intention of running again."
7:40am
by the way, those that were elected to the 113th congress, the house freshmen, they will be in washington this week and will get their first lessons on parliamentary procedure, dinners and two words, a group photo, and the arduous process of securing assignments and scoring office spaces, all of that happening this week in washington. leadership elections, house minority leader nancy pelosi, expected to make a decision on wednesday about whether or not she stays in her top role for house democrats. james, what is the name of your town? what are your thoughts on cutting entitlements, independent caller? caller: hello, am i on? host: you are on. caller: i am 65 and have been working for the u.s. postal service for 28 years.
7:41am
i want to get into a particular part of that fiscal cliff. it reminds me of what i thought was happening when bush first started. it was not his fault, it seems to me. there are a lot people, however, that followed the same ground. all of a sudden, everything went up. my home, which i purchased in 1997, was worth $120,000, four bedrooms in california. all of a sudden, when i got divorced in 2000, did not work out how live plan, all of a sudden everything went up. a lot of people have that luxury of -- gosh, money. and the next thing you know?
7:42am
we are all looking at a number that is too high for the average person. a number that we all wish we could have kept hold of. i sold my house, we thought we could afford to live in this place or that place, we moved on and we lived our lives. at this point, i do not understand where we are going with the fiscal cliff from the beginning. someone moved the goal posts and has been allowed to stay that way. i believe that if i had all my opportunities, with the money and the house, we could still do what we wanted. maybe everyone should have been republicans. host: jack, independent caller.
7:43am
caller: basically, what is going on here is a long played the game of the shell game. you know that game? the three shells of? host: right, right. caller: social security has not added to the deficits that caused the national debt and the fiscal cliff. it has not basically added to it. it has kicked out huge surpluses for the last 30 years. so, obviously, obviously, it could not have added to the deficits that caused this problem. host: what about these rejections? baby boomers retiring? caller: that is covered by the fact that we have a huge number of bonds that represent the surplus. if those are worthless, the
7:44am
chinese had better start worrying. and everyone else. that is the trust fund. that has been taken care of. the reagan commission raised the tax rates and cut the benefits by raising the retirement age back in '83. that caused huge surpluses in the program. the corrupt elites that run this country are trying to weasel out of paying that money back. you can bet on it. what is causing this problem? it is our empire maintenance and graft assurance departments laughably called the fence. they cut taxes under the bush administration, raised defense department spending hugely, and
7:45am
had two criminal wars. that is what is causing the problem. host: we got your point. front page of "the new york times." "with both parties negotiating to avert a fiscal crisis -- host: so, that is one idea being floated out there, an idea that some democrats say they're looking at. eric, you are our last caller on
7:46am
this topic. what are your thoughts? eric, arizona. are you there? caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. i have some problems, here. i am 27 and everyone wants to cut, you know, social security. everyone wants to tax the rich. making over $250,000 per year? you are not paying enough. i do not understand. if you're making that much money, you are successful. you have done what you have needed to do, taken the risks, traded a business, taken the time, gone to college, gotten a better job and better yourself. did you have probably better your community. -- you have probably battered --
7:47am
bettered your community. people living off of government entitlement programs, thinking -- how can i get more everything? rent control, section a. why are we talking about taxing the rich? why not talk about helping getting people off. that is not even an option right now. host: all right, let's stop there. first, i want to show you "the daily news" about superstore sandy, new york hit with a $30 billion bill. "the daily news" is saying to suck it up.
7:48am
responding to the storm up there in new york. that is a story to watch as congress returns. another topic for congress, of course, is the situation with general petraeus resigning. we will talk about that with ronald kessler, next. we will talk about protocol, and then we will return to this fiscal cliff discussion with evan in, former democratic senator from indiana. we will be right back. ♪ >> c-span invites middle school and high-school students to send a message to the president. let the president know which
7:49am
issue is most important to be considered in 2013. the studentcam video competition is open to students grades 6 through 12, and the january -- and the deadline is january 18. for complete rules, go online to studentscam.org. >> i enjoy the rebroadcast of various television news programs. i like that they provide and to end coverage without the sound bites. it really gives me an opportunity to consume as much information on what is going on. c-span is a great way to kind of get an unfiltered view of the day's events. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider.
7:50am
>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by ronald kessler, back at the table this morning, author of "secrets of the fbi, cia at war." back here to talk about the fallout of the resignation of general petraeus. let's begin with this fbi investigation. was it a routine? caller: know, given the cent -- guest: know, given the sensitive -- no, given the sensitivity of the position. i got a call saying that this had started in the late spring and was not going to end until the election was over, which at that point he would be asked to resign. that tells you something about this whole situation. there is no reason why it should have taken five months, given the sensitivity of his job.
7:51am
he could have been blackmailed at any point. russian foreign intelligence, for example. i was told that if this had happened with a top-level executive at the fbi, he would have been out the door the same day. i think there is a real cover-up going on. host: let me stick with that. why? guest: i was told by this agents that they were to avoid any embarrassment to the president, that this would make it look bad. the idea was that he did not want to take any chances. if you look at the timing, it is pretty obvious. this was a simple matter e-mail harassment, threatening e-mails. why would it take five months? if it took five months to wrap up terrorist threats, we would all be in serious trouble. in some of the news accounts you see this sort of cover story
7:52am
being put out there, that it takes a long time to trace the e-mails. the fbi director gave me a tremendous access, including housing. it takes about half of an hour to do this now. everything is set up with different carriers and providers. it is all done electronically and like that, they can trace anything. host: let me go back to the very beginning. the fbi gets complaints from this woman that she is getting harassing e-mails from the woman who was having an affair with general petraeus. why would they even look into it? guest: apparently it was of a threatening nature. host: is that retained? guest: usually is the local
7:53am
police. the fbi also has jurisdiction when it comes to threaten e- mails. but a lot of that stuff in the press is misinformation. there is a source that says that it was not that serious, with a lot of misinformation going on. some of it comes from the general himself. i know that he has been mailing people in the press with his self-serving comments, trying to manipulate the whole story. and then you see it appear, from family friends. it is quite an arcane story. host: so, he is still trying to be involved in this story? guest: you would think that if he had better judgment, he would walk away from it. he seemed apologetic, he should move on. host: is there, was there, and
7:54am
national security risk? caller: -- guest: this certainly was at the time. this is the classic way that foreign intelligence works. exploiting the vulnerable to get their secrets. in the case of a cia director, few people have so many secrets. he would have known about the kennedys of assets and terrorists, but in the embassy's overseas about nuclear war plans -- bugging embassies overseas, nuclear war plans. knowing that it could have been blackmailed, that is inexcusable. host: how does the fbi conclude that there is a national security risk? guest: anyone who has national security clearance, especially
7:55am
top-secret, is obligated not to compromise themselves. that is why they have background checks, polygraph tests to uncover any of this, to see if anyone is hiding something that might make them vulnerable. host: given that, is there any protocol to be consistently watching top leaders with security clearance at all times? whether or not based suspect something? guest: there are all kinds of checks. host: are they spying on each other? guest: it is up to the fbi to do that, but the cia has their own people. they look for anything suspicious, including quetta reports to see if someone is more in debt or has more money than they should have. remember, aldrich james was driving to new york in a jaguar.
7:56am
unfortunately, they ignore that, but that is the type of tipoff to should be looking for. host: was it strange that they did not know? do you think they did? guest: i think that there were people there who thought that this was a little strange. but it is sort of hard to question the director. i do not see that that was a big problem. one thing about it, they should have taken action. the person would have been out the door in the same day. they will make sure that this person does not come back to work. host: there is a lot of back- and-forth between the committees about when they should have known about this issue.
7:57am
guest: there is no specific requirement, but there is an obligation to let intelligence kennedys know anything significant, which is obviously subjective, but this certainly was. president obama claims that he was told about it by coincidence two days after the election. is that not strange, and i believe the story that they found one for the summer. he is briefed on threats and sensitive investigations. obama should have been briefed on this. i believe the only explanation was that obama gave the order to keep it quiet.
7:58am
host: here is "the baltimore sun." "a top aide was told that the cia chief, david petraeus, was having an affair." what do you think this says to this debate? guest: general mahler himself knew about it. it is not just a matter of who knew about it amongst his aides. i was told on the 10th that the justice department knew about it. so, the whole thing is really a absurd, the idea that this could go on and no one knows about it. it just happens that they take action after the election?
7:59am
it reminds me of watergate. i would hear them discuss things. in fact, woodward autograph his book to me, number one investigative reporter. but what was going on then was that the reporters that cover the white house, covered beats, they were defending nixon, defending the idea that the white house was not involved, deriding those on the metro staff. it took people from outside to bring on the facts. i see that note -- i see that going on now. there was a "the new york times" story that went on and on about how long it takes to trace the e-mails. that is absurd. i think it takes about half of
8:00am
an hour. host: when it comes to classified information, what are the rules for that and whether or not it can be disclosed? what do you think that will do for guest: anything that is classified it may not be others, who may not have a need to know. that is another issue here. petraeus was allowed to remain in place. that could compromise for four or five months. host: what is the event is if governor petraeus would have resigned before the election? guest: it could have been a
8:01am
distraction. i don't think mitt romney would use this for political purposes. ."et's not take a chance it might be embarrassing. obama had appointed petraeus. host: the fallout on the cia? the impact of this on the cia? guest: i do not think it will have an impact. people on the hill are furious that they were not informed. robert muller has had a good ride with the congressional committees. his reputation is pristine.
8:02am
the fbi has been rolling up terrorists every several months. we have a lot to be grateful for bob smalmueller. i think he will take a fall. host: who do you think might succeed general petraeus? guest: speculation is always wrong. michael morrell is a big possibility. he is highly respected across the board. if brennan wants to take the job, it will be his for the taking. host: tyrone, thank you 4 waiting. caller: thank you for taking my call.
8:03am
i have a brief statement and a couple of questions. have you ever held a political office? host: if you've had a political office in washington? guest: no. host: what is your point? caller: i am an independent. i'm not defending the president. why don't you give the process time to develop? factsn't you let the develop? to say there is a cover-up -- give the process a chance to develop.
8:04am
everybody wants to be the first to break a story. you are innocent until proven guilty. guest: all the media people would be out of business if they took your advice. it is important the press expose these things and report these things. it takes half an hour for the fbi to trace these e-mails. why did it take five months before petraeus was asked to resign. you can read my book, "the secrets of the fbi." host: the process of whether or not any information was exchanged. wouldn't that process take a while?
8:05am
guest: no, i do not think there was a need to keep him in office while that process was going on. they could have investigated further. host: what are the rules? adultery is a crime. is that the same for the cia? guest: no. host: why did he have to go? guest: you may not leave yourself in a compromise situation subject to blackmail. it is important we trust our leaders that have our secrets. if you try to cover an affair, you put yourself in a position
8:06am
where you can be blackmailed. host: "the washington post," had line inside the paper -- headline inside the paper. host: is that protocol? guest: standard practice for many people to try to keep their jobs. he wanted to try to do that. that is not the way it was going to work. the question of bob mueller's involvement -- i think he would
8:07am
thought that if this were a criminal investigation, we would proceed as we see fit and in this case, as far as petraeus is concerned, the agency would decide what action should be taken and when. i think he said if the white house wants to wait until after the election, that is their call. petraeus was in a compromise position for four or five months. caller: please explain the double standard. it was never broadcast when president clinton were caught with affairs. guest: nobody can remove a president except congress and they did in peach him but he was not removed as a result.
8:08am
on a regular basis, employees with security clearances who are found to have lied about affairs and other compromising situations are fired. there would be a double standard if petraeus were allowed to remain in office, in charge of this agency where everybody else is expected to avoid impropriety. host: the investigation has expanded to general john allen. he apparently exchange e-mails with this woman from tampa, florida, who initiated the whole probe and received e-mails from a woman who was having the affair with general petraeus.
8:09am
what is the impact of this on national security? guest: some other general was involved but did not mention the details. that is more veracity to the tip. this is not pertinent to the main issue of petraeus and the breach of security. this kind of foolishness goes on a lot. the agent first dealing with jill kelley showed a photograph of himself. host: could that not be the same with general allen? guest: it depends on what he was doing with her. i guess he was married.
8:10am
we do not know there was an affair going on. host: we have your front-page from "newsmax." dave in new york, democratic caller. caller: good morning. why is the cia and fbi not cooperating with each other? i do not condone general petraeus having a relationship with another woman because he is a married man. host: are you still there? we lost dave. guest: teacher the fbi and cia
8:11am
often did not operate before 9/11. now things have changed. the counterterrorism center in mclean now has fbi and cia people working side by side treading information all day long. things really have changed. business toe fbi's investigate and that is their job. host: we have a comment on twitter from monty labban. guest: i don't know how much detail this person gave eric cantor. some kind of national security issue and not letting out all the facts.
8:12am
i don't know what they knew. host: we have this from boringfileclerk. charlie, go ahead. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: you keep talking about a cover-up. the investigation should be square on the person and why they kept pursuing it. the fbi went through this. it was basically an affair. they had done away with it. one guy kept calling to keep the story going. guest: i think that is a misinterpretation.
8:13am
their work threading e-mails -- there were threatening e-mails. that is a serious breach for national security. the head of the cia --very serious. host: the attacks in libya. guest: i do not think there is a connection, that somehow this all happened so petraeus would not testify this week. he could just as well testify next week. host: unrelated. "the washington times" lists those set to testify.
8:14am
includes the acting director of the cia. dianne feinstein said she would subpoena general petraeus if necessary to testify after he went to libya and also some she would put a vote on the floor to subpoena him if the administration did not operate. republican caller from texas. caller: i want to thank c-span for all their work. i watched a show on c-span last night. paula broadwell was talking about one of her books. the state director of security -- the cia director of security
8:15am
. one of the things she touched on was general petraeus. they were intentionally going after his computers to see what they could find behind the scenes. it was amazing to watch these shows back-to-back. how can folks say people are not aware of this and it popped up at the last minute? apparently this had been going on for many months. what she said last night was very extensive. guest: you were saying the security chief talked about looking at petraeus's computers
8:16am
? that doesn't sound right to me. they would not be talking about this investigation in this type of setting. host: the caller was referring to "book tv." you can go to c-span.org in case you missed that. moving done to nancy in maryland -- moving on to nancy. caller: i think that you should give it an opportunity to play out and see what the evidence and see what happened. i didn't understand how in the world they give this guy that is talking -- it seems like the same thing as what the lady did.
8:17am
he wrote a book about it. it was ok. it was on him. i did not see any difference. host: who are you talking about? caller: the guy on tv talking right now. guest: this is the way press works. people give a journalist tips and secrets. out.try to check thetm i was looking for cooperation. i did a story revealing it was the fbi that was behind all this because i had been given a tip. that is have a works. bob mueller approve giving me
8:18am
the access i had, especially some of the most closely guarded secrets about how they break-in to plant bugging devices to catch mafia people and terrorists. they thought they could tell me what they told me without compromising anything. it tells you how the fbi works and some of the ingenious methods they used to catch criminals and terrorists. host: the fbi said there was no national security risk. "usa today" reporting fbi agents were searching paula broadwell' home.
8:19am
why search her home? guest: she did say it in a speech that the benghazi attack could have been because the cia annex was being used to imprison terrorists. did petraeus tell her that this as a purpose of the amnnex, tack.bored the attaefore the at there is an opening in the executive order governing this. the cia may imprisoned people on a temporary basis. there was a terrorist that was put on a ship to be interrogated
8:20am
for a few months. it could also be the military. the state does have the possibility for temporary incarceration. host: style section of "the washington post." he says this -- guest: i think that is perfectly understandable. it was taking place behind
8:21am
closed doors. host: robert is up next. caller: thank you for listening. i like to get your opinion on the rift between law enforcement and counter intelligence. i think the petraeus resignation -- i do not think he should have resigned. there's been a huge battle between law enforcement and counter intelligence as to who should takeover domestic spying since 9/11. the fbi wants to make an arrest as soon as there is enough evidence. they want to hold off an arrest
8:22am
and continue surveillance to get more vital information. if either of these women surrounding petraeus was a honey trap, they should been put under intense surveillance until they were proven not guilty, would have lessened the impact on petraeus. host: you sound knowledgeable. do you have experience in the intelligence community? caller: i write about it quite a bit. guest: there was no indication -- caller: my phone is messed up.
8:23am
guest: there was no indication that petraeus had been compromised. there will be no reason to conduct surveillance of him. this suppose it disconnect between law enforcement and counter intelligence is sort of a myth, especially since 9/11. the main focus of the fbi has been prevention of plots and that means developing sources and not putting cuffs on people and developing leads. the main idea is to uncover the next plot. a last priority is to put somebody in jail. i interviewed art cummings for
8:24am
my book. when agents are ready to make an arrest, she may be putting the country in jeopardy by doing that because this person could have the label information. some people think the british mi-5 is the model we should be pursuing. they pursue counterintelligence. those people in the mi-5 are jealous. the record is clear. we have not had a successful foreign terrorist attack since 9/11. we should leave that in place and that is a great testimony
8:25am
to mueller and his leadership. host: we have a question on twitter. guest: no, the law was followed in this case as far as pursuing threatening e-mails. there is no reason to think there was a problem whatsoever. i think there will be some rethinking on the intelligence committee on both sides of the house. aspect ofother jeff ishfishy this. obama supposedly did know until two days after the election. keep it quiet. they were not told about is
8:26am
further evidence of that. host: bonnie is up next from arizona. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i want you and the author to know that i feel like this is a cover-up. president obama does not have a strong leadership. between this, benghazi, the fast and furious incident in arizona with our border agent getting killed, security and exchange commission. they found out people on the job were looking at pornography most of the day. it is ridiculous. what does the author think of the american public not being told what was going on before
8:27am
the election and why this has been drawn out to keep obama in office. host: hang on and listen. you call it a coverup and tite e it to benghazi. caller: it is another nail in the coffin as far as respecting our present cost leadership. he doesn't have control of his administration. guest: i do believe this was a cover-up as far as the petraeus cover-up was concerned. you don't have to listen to me about that. look at the time line.
8:28am
the investigation began in the spring. this was one of the most sensitive investigations in government. host: what is the cover-up? guest: the fbi was told not to take any action or that no action would be taken against petraeus until after the election. now others are trying to justify this. "it takes awhile to trace all of these e-mails." host: let's go to tailor in michigan -- taylor. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. they are saying president obama did not know. but eric cantor knew ahead of
8:29am
time and he didn't tell anybody. maybe the president did not know about this. shouldn't eric cantor have told congress about this? guest: i do not know how much he was told. a national security issue involving petraeus and no more details. he went back to the fbi about it. it is not necessarily his job to investigate allegations like that. usa" writes's work -- guest: it is important for any cover-up to be exposed.
8:30am
there was a potential for compromise and that is something that should be brought out. in the old days, before there was oversight, there were all kinds of terrible abuses going on. the press did not reveal these things. the fbi under j. edgar hoover was blackmailing members of .ongress, illegal wiretapping the cia was giving lsd to some other employees. the cia was doing foolish things to try to get castro's beard to fall off. you end up filing the law and
8:31am
people's constitutional rights but you also lose focus. that is what we saw in many cases. when the congress start having oversidght? guest: 1975, 1976. i expose some of them myself. jfk, lyndon johnson, nixon -- they were afraid to fire hoover because he had black mail material on them. that is not a good thing. host: what is the fallout for all this? guest: the petraeus matter will
8:32am
not affect any of that. there have been many conflicting explanations about what happened in benghazi, beginning with the state department saying it was a terrorist attack. president obama said it was a video. susan rice said the same thing. there is a lot of smoke that should be cleared up. host: ronald kessler, written several pieces about all of this. thank you for being here. the debates over avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff with evan bayh. then we will discuss global reaction to president obama's second term. but first in news update.
8:33am
guest: more on the david petraeus story. the agent that launched the investigation was barred from taking part in the case over the summer because of concerns that he was personally involved in the case. the agent continued to press the matter and relate his concerns to a member of congress. congress returns today and will try to work out how to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. refers to tax increases and spending cuts to defense and domestic problgrams. the issue may not be resolved by year's end. pretty much everyone will be affected if there is no deal. it could throw the economy back into recession and cost no
8:34am
income families about $2,000 more next year. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> i enjoyed watching book tv -- >> i enjoy the rebroadcast of various television news programs. i like that they provide coverage without the sound bites. it really gives me an opportunity to consume as much information on what is going on. c-span is a great way to kind of get an unfiltered view of the day's events. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> "washington journal" continues. ,ost: we're back with evan bayh
8:35am
now co-founder of the no labels organization. let me begin with the petraeus resignation. is your reaction -- what is your reaction? guest: it is if personal tragedy. he was doing a fabulous job as director. we're fortunate that we have a great leadership team. michael morrell house now now stepped- hasno in. host: did he have to resign? guest: my own answer is yeah, i think he did. there are a handful of positions
8:36am
in the government where you can have someone who is susceptible to the potential for being blackmailed. what if his paramour had been blackmailed? you cannot have the director with that kind of vulnerability. head of the department of defense or head of the caia, can't have that. host: if they knew before the election there was a directive that came down that this would not be told to the public until after the election, what is your reaction to that? guest: i think we should wait to find out what the facts are.
8:37am
this was a tough situation. it appears the fbi concluded there was no law broken and no national security breach. the nation was not harmed. host: should the intelligence committee members have known? guest: we want to know right away. no national security breach. no laws broken. he probably needed to resign. host: you still serve on an advisory board. guest: it is a group of individuals with long experience in the intelligence, national
8:38am
security arena who served as a sounding board for the director about major issues the agency is facing. we meet quarterly. leon panetta started this. we review a variety of issues. host: let's move on to the so- called fiscal cliff. lots of stories that president obama is meeting with labor leaders who insist the president does that change entitlements. the you agree? -- do you agree? guest: it is not as if it is etched in stone. it has to be a balanced approach. the nation is on the road to bankruptcy.
8:39am
you have to do would in a way that calls for additional revenue. possibly asking those who have been most successful to get the deficit down. i think you'll find both sides. the far-right will be saying no revenue whatsoever. what needs to happen is somewhere between the 40 yard lines. host: are democrats serious about deficit reduction? guest: if we went over the fiscal cliff, i think you would see the equity markets sell off dramatically. it would be very harmful to the real economy. business people are postponing investments because they do not
8:40am
know what kind of tax structure they will be dealing with. we want to keep the country on a stable basis. the balance would be different than many republicans. we have a process to hash all that out. host: labor leaders take credit for reelecting president obama for a second term. guest: i think he should say, "i am devoted to the progressivity of the programs. to make some modest adjustments and to save these programs. some adjustments may be
8:41am
necessary." host: if that is true and we've heard from harry reid that he does not think social scurvy should be on the table -- social security should be on the table. centrist democrats say we're willing to compromise on this issue. what is the payback from party leaders? guest: there is change and then there is change. tip o'neill and ronald reagan got together and saved the program. sometimes you need to adjust to change the thing you care most about. tip o'neill did not sell off the democratic party by embracing that. if we do it in a responsible
8:42am
way that doesn't gut the program, i think the base of the party will understand. the alternative is doing nothing with bad damage to the economy, or the right wing of the republicans coming in and taking over and their answer to the solution would be much more draconian. host: jack in kentucky. caller: i have one question. can you guarantee -- guest: i thought you're going to ask why indiana university and kentucky and not playing basketball this year. for the first time they are now
8:43am
playing and we are rivals. i cannot talk about classified information on tv. things like stinger missiles are very problematic and we do everything we can to keep track of them. muammar gaddafi stockpiles of weapons, surface- to-air missiles and we're doing everything to track those down and secure them. the region was awash in those things. it's a concern. host: paul in indianapolis, go ahead. guest: where do you live in indy? caller: south of hamilton county.
8:44am
guest: not too far away. caller: i am pro-life progressive. i do not have a party. i never voted for you or against you. guest: you are open-minded. caller: i am retired civil servants. i think we need to step outside the box. once you get all the federal benefits, it is almost impossible to get off them because you have to make $20 an hour to be a " but what you're getting from the government. it makes it almost impossible for people once they get hoped to get off of that. there are very few jobs left out there for $22 an hour.
8:45am
i have a suggestion. bill clinton and david stockton agree on a solution for the entitlement program. they said to do away with the payroll tax and fund the medicare and pension system with a national sales tax, would eliminate the advantage that europe and the other nations have over us because they don't charge that on the exports. guest: many economists agree with your last point. the payroll tax cut is regressive and is a disincentive to save. many economists would agree with your point.
8:46am
bill clinton and david stockton can agree on something. they are more sensible than some in the political arena today. the point about dependency on public assistance -- i have not looked at this recently. i received permission to engage welfare reform. we meet the whole process much more work related. you have to participate in job- training. when a job came open, you had to take it. welfare rolls move down substantially. i think that is how the process should work. there should be a temporary way
8:47am
station, back to being a taxpayer once again. that is my take on ait. host: here is a tweet from jah08. guest: well, there is never a great time to raise taxes. with the economy on the along at an anemic growth rate and with being stagnants for a decade, you probably should wait to raise taxes until the economy has achieved a self
8:48am
sustaining growth. most people would say that is probably 3%. wealthiest americans can afford to do more and should be asked to do more. many say, "i would be happy to give more but i want to know it goes to the deficit." that is a conversation we need to have. they are also the ones who do the hiring and make the investments. by raising their burdens, their reaction is, "no big deal, i can afford it." sometimes the reaction is, " maybe i should delay hiring
8:49am
because i do not know how this whole thing will work out." yes, the affluent will probably have to do more. the economy grows and would get the deficit down and the affluent feel like they have done their part to help the country. host: jim in maryland. caller: i was listening at your program. i think we should go along and tax everybody over $250,000. i can remember when franklin roosevelt came into office. there were taking money out of the bank's and crashing the system. he said if you don't put the money back into the banks, i
8:50am
will counterfeit every dollar. they started putting money back into the bank's. it is a shame that people are being made to pay for what they have stolen from this country. guest: we will have a big debate about where the cut out should pbe. chuck schumer has said let's make it $1 million. my guess is that is where the compromise will be struck. there will probably deal with preferences and exemptions and the tax code. those may be capped in a way. it will lead the economy to grow more quickly. i think the affluent will be
8:51am
asked to do more. it shouldn't hurt the economy. it is hard to be for more jobs but be hostile to people that create jobs. we have to grow the economy. part of it is timing. i hope we do get away from -- i hope we can get away from the us and you attitude. host: we have a tweet from k9 co-pilot. guest: i think there is some chance of that, yes. i think the line will be drawn
8:52am
at $1 million. the republicans would see that .s say a win that have to decide we do about investment income. it may go up to 20%. i don't think it'll go all the backup to what it was under president clinton. the short answer is yes. it will probably look a lot like it was under president clinton. next.pat is caller: i'm so thankful to be on. senator bayh, i have always admire you as a voice for
8:53am
working together in the democratic party. i think this election has proved one thing to most of us. if you had the afl-cio rounding up 400,000 people to march and do everything they can to elect the president, the republicans have not been that -- it takes to elect people. they had to get them to the polls. or then't romney republican party at fault. i think you are a -- i do not understand how someone could thinkers that have no credibility and are in the white house all the time. this is what disturbs me more
8:54am
than anything. there will make right to work states in every state including texas. this is a vibrant place in dallas. people are moving here in droves. we have an honest to goodness fair government. thank you very much. guest: thank you for your kind words about me. taxes is growing by leaps and bounds. this is made our country much more energy independent and has brought the price of natural gas down. i hope we can agree we don't want to reverse that and continue to go forward with
8:55am
these wonderful changes that have taken place in energy. we have a chance to see a renaissance in manufacturing. a lot of these jobs going overseas may come home. i have been asked and i would make three quick points. i think this election was about a lot of things. i think it is more complicated than that. i would start with the candidates. mitt romney is a good man. he wasn't as natural a communicator as the president . he had a habit of saying things that didn't help him.
8:56am
the president is a natural and gifted communicator. the democrats had a much better get out the vote operation. republicans need to focus on that. democrats were better in the swing states in getting at the base. the third thing is the following. 55% of moderates voted for barack obama for president. why did the republicans lose the moderates? the farther right positions governor romney was forced to take in the primary to get the nomination and he was stuck with them. lost the hispanic vote by 40 points.
8:57am
they need to focus on some of the social issues. they need to express themselves in a way that don't alienate suburban women. we had a senate candidate who talked about rape and how if that happened it was god's will. people listen to that and thought, "he met the representatives of me." you have to look at turning at your base. elections tend to be decided in the middle. what was it about the republican message that was not as attractive to the moderates? host: could you be a candidate
8:58am
for president? guest: the only thing you find in the middle of the road are dead armadillos. host: 1 and holding the money for -- what are you holding the money for ? guest: i have given away a fair amount. i have kept some. i'm 56 years old. you just never know what the future holds. i love public service and wanted to keep the option open. if the option is close, i'll give away the money on a more aggressive basis.
8:59am
host: is 2016 a possibility for you? guest: i have no plan to run for office. host: so it is not the presidency - guest: oh, the presidency you're talking about? i didn't want to run for the sake of my ego. i was flattered to be considered vice-president. it has been a privilege to work on behalf of the public. host: you could return to those positions? guest: it is possible. i love what i'm doing in the private sector and the odds are
9:00am
i will continue to do that. host: what are you doing in the private sector? guest: i'm doing a variety of things and keeping busy. i am on the advisory board of the cia. host: guest: we have more moderate than expected. we have 20 signed up and we hope to have 40, have democrats and how republicans who are practical problem solvers and care more about doing what's right for this country and moving the country forward. host: why not before january? guest: we have a new congress coming in. i think it is www.nolabels.org,
9:01am
for those of you who are interested. tom davis, a republican army house, we will be doing this on a bipartisan basis. the challenge we have is that these people are beat by the two extremes saying if you do not toe the party line we will come after you. we want to have their back. if you do what you think is right for the country coming use of these problems and we will be there to lift you up. host: off twitter -- guest: i do think it will go up from 15% to 20%, but i would rephrase the question a little bit. what i'm interested in, what will grow the economy and create
9:02am
jobs? the capital gains rate can be raised some without affecting that. you go too far and people stopped. we ought to think about what would lead to the battle results -- better results. they probably need to do more and i think they will. if you go too far in that direction, you end up harming the economy. host: jack from rockford, ill., welcome to the conversation. caller: excuse my nervousness. i only do this once every five years. we have a supply and demand economy and it works. it works. my thoughts are where we have
9:03am
more supply than demand, corporations may need some help. it would be a bad time to cut taxes. at this time, we have less demand than supply, i would think the consumer's need help. social security and people on welfare, they all buy. i cannot think of any intelligent employer who would create one single job if there is no buyer rather with money to purchase their products. it seems to me like this is the time to cut corporate or upper- income taxes and not the social income benefits and they would spend their money. i have to spend my money. i buy products.
9:04am
guest: jack, i thought you did great only calling in once. five years and you made an excellent point. what we do have is a gap between the capacity of the economy to produce and what they call aggregate demand. part of that is because consumers like a jack make up 70% of the american economy. real wages have not gone up. they cannot run up their credit card bill anymore. people are feeling less wealthy and they cannot take out home equity loans. consumers have been pretty anemic. businesses in the best but that follows consumption and demand. -- businesses invest, but that follows consumption. china is slowing down. the final area is government. the reason for the so-called stimulus plan was to try to fill
9:05am
in this whole of aggregate demand. they were supposed to get the economy going to a point where it would be self sustaining. it obviously did not solve the problem because the recovery tend to take longer because of the leveraging -- deleveraging and a lack of confidence in the future. jack makes an excellent point. this is not the time to either raise taxes or cut things for social security. i mentioned $1 million. above that line coming improbably not affect consumption that much. you get down to someone making $50,000, and that would affect them. this is not the time to bird and people with modest means the need to be able to support
9:06am
themselves but they also spend that money in the economy to keep it going when demand is below capacity of the economy. host: columbus, indiana, independent scholar. guest: how are things in bartholomew county? caller: they are great. are among social security. i do not live above my means. -- i am awed social security. they would rather reform taxes for people working here from foreign countries. maybe it would help us get our economy back on track again. guest: reform taxes for people here from foreign countries? host: taxing them more, i assume? guest: i think that's a fairly
9:07am
small percentage of the american workforce, foreign nationals. referring to people in the country illegally would be something else. look. we need to take a complete look at the tax code and i think congress will be doing that. how to restructure this in ways to help the economy grow? that is the biggest challenge right now. it's a very competitive world out there. the population is aging and we are not creating enough jobs and investment. what can we do with the 10,000 page tax code to make it easier to hire people come to invest, and grow the economy? two, there are certain things we have to pay for, social security, national defense, decent health care. how do we pay for that? where do we set the rates? income, capital gains, dividends, tax rates to help pay for the things that we need.
9:08am
finally, the issue of fairness. we are all in this together. some people will do better than others, that's life. we want to make sure no one is dying in the streets. we need a basic minimum of a standard of living that people get. we are a compassionate society. host: you mentioned you were open to being in the obama administration. have you talked to the white house about possibly being appointed? guest: i said i would be open to it at some point, not necessarily now. i'm not lobbying for an office here today. i would be happy to serve my country or think about it seriously. i will tell you a little story. elrich clinton and i are friends. i used to sit next to each other on the armed services committee. she came in for a hearing and i
9:09am
turned to her and i said, for whatever you want, but why did you do this? you're giving up your independence. you can say what you want. yet to be a team player, give advice, but at the end of the day the president decides you have to go out and salute the flag in be a good soldier. she said to me, you know when the president calls you and say is they need you to serve your country, there's only one answer you can give. she's wired that way and i think a lot of people are wired that way. if you can help your country, you should do it. host: do continue to talk to secretary of state clinton? guest: a have not spoken to her in a while. i have spoken to former president clinton several times. but she is extraordinarily busy traveling all over the world and she works like a dog. i would not bother her with something like that unless it
9:10am
was really important. host: any insight on what she would be doing next? guest: no, and if i know i would not say. people who know don't talk to people who don't know -- people who don't know talk. caller: by the question on jobs. i made it a disabled veteran. when i was in the navy, all the clothing items are all made in the republic of china. do,'s one thing we could make sure all the items that we buy in the government are made in the u.s. that would increase the amount of jobs that we have here. i have another question about campaigning during the election. what role do you think this
9:11am
plays in the gridlock? you think a candidate should tell us what the plant to do instead of just talking about each other? guest: think you for your call. i will answer the second one first. i happen to be in ohio on several occasions. it was just one negative ad after teh other. you think that we were just running criminals for office. in fact, see it-- these are some of teh finest minds in the country. if the reason they run these negative ads because they tended to work. it's up to us. if you see someone running an
9:12am
ad, and very often these are not run by the candidates by some third-party group. a candidate runs an ad that is just no good and two-, if they're trying to help them by running -- and too negative, don't vote for them. they'll stop running. we have the ultimate control. his first question was about the clothing of the military being made in china. i'm all for buying american, but we have to be careful because we want the chinese to buy our stuff, too. so how do we strike that balance where clearly anything that touches on a national security interest of the united states and we need to maintain its productive capacity, those sorts of things, that needs to be kept close to home. for broader commodities, we want
9:13am
them to buy our stuff and that means record have to buy some of theirs when they are market more of a low-cost producer. host: if you minutes left with former senator evan bayh. he announced his retirement in february 2010 after leaving the senate he became a partner in a long for -- a lwyer in a firm in d.c. matt smith on twitter. we learned in the papers today that it may be one item one the to do list for this congress. guest: i have supported a raise in the minimum raise. it ought to be a decent, livable wage. it tends to help with that
9:14am
economy. you have to be reasonable. you cannot raise it so high that it stifles and employment, but there may be room there for an adjustment that could be helpful. host: is $7.25 and they want to raise it to over $9 in two years. is that reasonable? guest: i have not looked at the proposals but there's probably some room there for improvement without going so far that business leaders is the roll up their hands and said it will not hire people. host: last fall to pulte from esparta, ill. -- our last call from sparta, illinois. caller: it seems like a red flag goes up when you talk about social security. why put a cap on it at like $106,000. if they take tehe cap fof, i
9:15am
don't s -- off, i don't see how it can't take care of itself. why would they not take the cap off? if you are at $109,000, you just did not pay any more. do you think that would help? guest: he raises a good point. medicare is not capped with social security is. why they did it that way in the beginning? i don't know. whether they destroyed the cap entirely, i don't know, but the caller would be interested to know that there are some aspects that make a progressive system already. if you have learned very modest wages, you get a little bit more in benefits and if you made more in your life, you get a little bit less. there are some elements in their that already held the balance.
9:16am
why it was built that way in the first place, you would have to go back and doing little research. host: senator bayh, thank you for joining us. guest: it's great to hear from people all across america and from indiana. host: turning our attention to the foreign-policy agenda. the president leaves for a trip overseas in a few days. first, a news update from c-span radio. nichols sayss hans bobby jindal is asking republicans to "stop being the stupid party" off and have an inclusive message. he is calling on republicans to reject anti-intellectualism.
9:17am
gov. jindal will take over the republican governors' conference this week. as congress returns to work today on legislation to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, president obama is working to enlist outside support for higher-income individuals paying more in taxes. the president hosting labor leaders at the white house today and tomorrow will meet with executives from from of the biggest companies, ge ceo and honeywell's ceo. he is being investigated in the sex scandal involving ex cia director david petraeus. is mr. is allegedly sent britney emails to a betrays brenda in florida and general allen is now accused of an appropriate
9:18am
communications with the woman in florida. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. watching "booktv." i like c-span providing end to end coverage without the editing and sound bites. unless we make up my own mind about what's going on. it's a great way to get an unfiltered view of the day's events. >> he watches c-span on comcast. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979 and brought to you as a public service by your public television provider. host: hist we are back with -- we are back with benjamin pauker
9:19am
with the world's reaction to president obama is reelection. how does it compare to 2008? guest: there was a great sense of hope. there was a sense of a changing america after eight long years of a bush presidency. sensehere's a certain that obama's policy choices have changed the notion of what it means for obama's presidency and the what the world thinks about it. while we have this close, contentious election here, the rest of the world really has a mandate for obama. that's the one place that can relate claim he has widespread popularity approval. this is the most comprehensive survey and across the board, there was an enormous popular support still for obama. he really is this transformational figure. in many cases, who represents the best of america.
9:20am
there really was not a real widespread approval in pakistan where there has been much a drover the issues of sovereignty and the osama bin laden raid. the other place is kenya. there's a feeling there among the public that they wanted him to focus a little bit more of his ancestors. host: what is the wish list? lust go through some countries. let's start with china. guest: for china, there will be a consistent policy approach. what's important is during this contentious elections, there was a lot of china bashing. they both wanted to show that they were tough on china for the american workforce and to be in support of the american
9:21am
workforce, but what's important now is to reestablish your relationship with china. they're going through their own leadership process right now. this is a once in a decade political transition and they are about to select the vice premier to now be the head of the new chinese standing committee and that is an enormous change for china. there's also consistency there. they also appreciate that they have an interlock or in president obama that they have dealt with before. he was here last year and spent time in america. they have someone who is in best of both in the pacific region and in maintaining trade relations with china and a consistent, stable relationship. >> president obama -- host: president obama leaving for a trip overseas including a trip to burma. guest: he is a good relationship with burma.
9:22am
it's possible the chinese do feel like the u.s. is now stepping on their turf somewhat. for the united states, the overture to burma has been a very positive thing. the chinese may feel that the u.s. is becoming more invested in the region, but what's interesting is that the obama administration has been very clear. perhaps you can say the biggest policy of the last four years is strategic. since the fall of the soviet union, the u.s. has been invested in the middle laced. that has been a primary focus of u.s. foreign policy. what obama is trying to do is to do a strategic readjustment to region, the china, asia pacific that is an engine of the new
9:23am
economy and there are also military and strategic rationales for this. host: else is he going and why? guest: is going to cambodia and thailand. this is a trip for him to reinforce the strategic rebalancing towards a job but the trip to burma is the actual interesting one. host: what is the wish list for the middle east? guest: the middle east is still in a great flux right now, issues with iran, israel. they're seeing some ratcheting up in gaza where they have seen hundreds of rockets firing in tension. there is a parliamentary elections in january which looks good for president netanyahu, but there's no way reinvigorated left in israel and is providing some opposition.
9:24am
host: critical of netanyahu? guest: more so than the have been before. the parliamentary process in israel is such that netanyahu can rely on some factional far right parties which have helped him in his coalition government, but yes. there's now a sense of a somewhat reinvigorated left in israel that had been wary of his bluster on iran. they would like to see a reinvigoration of the peace talks. host: what will be the focus there in the second obama administration? guest: the administration has been pretty clear. obviously, i am not privy to the intelligent but the reporting we have done in foreign policy is
9:25am
that there's no sense that iran is exceedingly close. the help of the cartoon picture saying this was teh red line. both said they did not want to get there. they wanted to stop them before. they are putting on unprecedented sanctions on iran. they're actually taking effect. there's a massive move in the riyal putting strain on the economy. let's see have the sanctions work before irrationing it up. host: what do. the next move is for syria? -- what do you think the next
9:26am
move is? guest: the top general in britain said they would be considering a move there. there's a conversation but in washington and other international capitals of their needs to be something done. winter is coming. you may not know this, but winter in syria is quite cold. those who have been displaced from their homes, there is, i think, 35,000 casualties in the 19th month of this civil war. host: here's a tweet from david cameron. given what you have just said about syria, could there be
9:27am
pressure from our allies to make a bolder move in syria? guest: the u.s. is already doing something. it does not seem like there is additional pressure. the rest of the u.s. allies, turkey, they are afraid of getting involved. the only pressure, or the most active countries right now we're probably -- are probably qatar and saudi arabia. we have troops and special forces along the border who are vetting who those bombs get delivered to. it is unclear exactly what the status of that is right now, but i do not feel that allies, as it happened in libya, where france and england really took the bull by the lens and pulled the u.s. into action and does not seem
9:28am
like that's the case in syria. there is a fear that it could widen, but there is a degree of caution. host: benjamin pauker, senior editor of "foreign policy" magazine. could there be fallout on for a policy when it comes to been gauzy attacks in libya? -- benghazi attacks? guest: we don't know much. this is one of those scandals that comes out in drips and drabs. there is a consensus that the american public wants to know more. there could be political fallout. there should be a number of hearings this week on benghazi. those will be closed door session but there will be some public ones later in the weeks so there is certainly a desire to hear more of the facts and
9:29am
there are big questions that are going unanswered both in the timeframe of what actually happened during the attack and we have little bits of information, but also in terms of whether the u.s. was ill- prepared and i need in terms of providing security for ambassador chris stevens. in a situation wherein a bastardizes something with that name to be investigated. host: in columbia, tenn., independent caller. go ahead. caller: good morning, greta, and to teh guest speaker. -- and the guest speaker. greta, you are the mona lisa of c-span. [laughter] i want to ask a very important question about obama's
9:30am
leadership in the next four years. this is something that i think we all can see. obama has really taken a change in his nature. by the way, benjamin, are you a christian? host: why is that relevant? caller: what is going on in our nation is so important about our religious beliefs. this is a world of islam. it's very important that we see repentance israb showing. goes back to the old testament scripture when he came to king hezekiah and he said, "get your house in order. your soul will be required of the lord."
9:31am
the king was already in tears of repentance. host: benjamin pauker, did you hear about for a policy? guest: the caller can quote scripture better than i can, but obama has reached out to the muslim world. i think he came into office as a president holding two wars. he won a nobel peace prize. it's fundamental to his nature that he wants to sort of reach out to people across the world they present a different notion of america. i do not think that is religion specific. i think it is across the board. his relationship with israel, the muslim world. host: this is a financial times editorial today.
9:32am
general petraeus has been the mastermind behind using drugs to go after al qaeda in the horn of africa. but has been the world reaction to this kind of military strategy? guest: it's a controversial strategy, no question. the administration has doubled down on the use of drones. there are significantly more than a river were then in the bush administration. there is clearly rationale for some of this, but there are some issues about executive privilege in making some of these decisions. i do not think petraeus is the only person who has been a mastermind. there are many who feel strongly about this. i do not see policy changing, but there's certainly a feeling in pakistan, the horn of africa, and other places.
9:33am
in yemen, it was the morning after obama's victory that there was a draw on strike in yemen -- drone strike. you can call them a surgical strikes, but there are certainly casualties. it's a conversation in the administration is having internally but there is, i think a, an international public opinion that is somewhat negative. and there will be a conversation about drones that will be forthcoming. host: off of twitter -- guest: the administration did not make a great deal of progress during the first administration. there's a lot of hope and optimism going into the copenhagen summit but obama was not able to really convince some
9:34am
of the emerging economies that they needed to make cuts to their carbon emissions. that is something i think we will see as a second term issue. i think obama needs to consider that and also the potential strictures that would place on the domestic economy. host: of crucis, mexico, democratic caller. -- las crucas. caller: we talked about syria, iran, and libya earlier. .'m concerned about north korea it strikes me that kim jung un is allowing to some westernized foods and such in. do you foresee anything be an done about the boming and the
9:35am
supposed sunken ship? i don't see any sanctions from the administration on north korea. what specifically president obama dealing with this, i think there are things that should be done. i think he could possibly talk to him and maybe get back to the six party talks. i would like to know your views on that. thank you. guest: i think that's a good point. the new leader in north korea, kim jong un, is in power. but it is a famously closed society. there's certainly a fear of nuclear escalation and there have been shakeups within the
9:36am
north korean military. whether or not that's an internal power struggle, we do not know. one of the top generals was perhaps killed by mortar fire. perhaps that is something that obama will bring to the table on his trip to asia, but i think there is a consistent policy that we want to prevent nuclear escalation in the region and it is true for all sides. japan, south korea, china, and other areas. we just do not know a lot about him and his policies going forward. to suggest that he would be a reformer and a new voice for the north korean people, it's just to read it -- too early to say. host: good morning, john.
9:37am
you are breaking up there. are you still with us? i think we're going to move on. sorry. maybe you can call back on a better line. arkansas. republican caller? caller: alaska. appear in ron paul country. they spend a lot of money to convert the alaskan republican party to rahm paul. benjamin, the previous caller asked you what your religion was and it is pertinent to my question. i'm a christian and i am a vietnam veteran. i base my thesis on the fact that the 1000 year war, and the it politically incorrect guide to islam. and george washington's exit speech when he retired. according to spencer, you cannot
9:38am
deal with their muslim. it is not just their religion but a political movement. you cannot deal with a muslim as an apostite because they will make any treaty and it is ok for them to break their word to turn around and kill the apostate. host: is there any truth in that when dealing with muslim nations, either dealing with each other or other countries? guest: what's really important here is that we need to talk about the arab springer. this was a fundamental moment of the past few years in which we
9:39am
saw this massive push in this really indigenous push within egypt, tunisia, and other democratic governments. some of those movements have had potentially scary things. there are some islamic fundamentalist parties that we do not have great relationships with and they understand that can be confusing thing. what obama has tried to do and in his famous speech in cairo is that he wants to deal with these countries and talk to the electorate. now we have an entirely different landscape, but in egypt, libya, and tunisia. relationship with these countries, these are countries with democratic governments. some of them have chosen paths that are a little more moderate, some leaning a little bit more to the fundamentalist side, but they're still fundamentally
9:40am
democratic and that will be a big challenge for the obama administration. host: its next for egypt? -- what is next for egypt? ?uest: in terms of ta host: the obama administration. guest: they still need to establish some of the legitimate government there. after the incredibly uplifting movements in it to rear square, it has devolved into a long protracted -- tahrir square, it has devloved. there is still no clear internal structure. it is enforcing the new governing structure and egypt has not really begun to speak out. this is a populous and important
9:41am
nation. there really have not since, since mubarak left office. the administration is working with them to reform the army, make sure the army is a stabilizing force and to make sure their relationship with israel is important. host: ken in lancaster, south carolina. caller: and kind of nervous. can you bear with me? i have three topics. i want to touch on general petraeus. yes, he needs to be disciplined. the attack that killed american
9:42am
citizens. he had no means of attacking us. then afghanistan. the corrupt government of karzai. osama bin laden was in pakistan and we gave them $10 billion in aid. china called us a paper tiger. host: your last point for benjamin pauker. that is something we have not talked about yet, the karzai government. what is next for afghanistan? guest: it is a time of transition out, one that was put on hold during long election season. there are 68,000 american troops still in afghanistan. there is a timetable with 2014. there has also been a process of potential negotiations with the
9:43am
telegram which has not gone anywhere. -- with te taliban that has not gone anywhere. o the caller's first point, the petraeus scandal, and general john allen, who replaced petraeus in afghanistan, being implicated in that scandal, it potentially poses problems. there's a continuity of military leadership, but our top generals to have relations with their counterparts in afghanistan. working towards that timeline, i think defense secretary leon panetta has not announced exactly what the timeline of the withdrawal was going to be so that is a forthcoming issue. host: secretary panetta says on his trip overseas yesterday that he will announce some sort of timeline soon. when do you expect to hear from
9:44am
secretary panetta or the administration on troop withdrawal? guest: i think, giving the fighting season is about to end, it will probably be sent, but there's too much trauma right now in the pentagon. we need to see how things play out with general allan. i do not think the time to make that move is right now, but i can imagine given the approach in time friend of 2014 and some serious conflict going on in afghanistan, we have a college a day from one of the main warlords in afghanistan -- we had a call yesterday from one of the main warlords over the structure of politics and the military. we have is consistent american concern over the blue and green attacks, the attacks for moroccan character parts of american soldiers.
9:45am
american public opinion for the war is very low. there will be something coming wall -- coming along soon. there's so much uncertainty with the petraeus scandal. host: the mideast situation. should the u.s. be concerned over border fighting between israel and syria? could this be the next mideast war over golan heights? guest: the u.s. is right to be concerned. this is an issue of great importance. israel now has conflicts on two orders, the gaza strip and now in syria. there has always been a fear that president bosch are all assaad would widen the conflict -- bashar al-assaad would widen teh conflict. there is a history of that.
9:46am
israel has attacked in syria before. the fighting yesterday seemed to be relatively inadvertent, according to the reporting that i saw, so i do not think this is the first step. host: and antonio, texas, democratic holler. -- san antonio. caller: a does want to ask your guest what he thinks about the israel people. but there are a lot of is really is that like president obama and disagree with prime minister netanyahu. i just wanted his opinion on that. guest: we have had a wallet, a positive relationship. we do not always agree, but there is a certain degree of affection among the israeli populace for obama.
9:47am
it was shown in surveys during the election. what you bring up is the question of whether or not prime minister netanyahu's perceived from the ship with mitt romney will affect his relationship with the obama administration. -- his perceived friendship will affect his relationship with obama. they are aware and have been articles about this. president netanyahu may have somewhat overstepped his support for romney during the election. perhaps it made his relationship with the president obama more controversial but there are continuities that both far beyond personality politics. host: 4 and -- foreignpolicy.com. benjamin pauker is the senior editor. caller: it's not often i get to ask a question of, but it to
9:48am
have a question concerning the mediterranean sea. it would seem to me in the north side of the mediterranean sea is pro-west and the south side of the mediterranean sea is, at best, anti-pro west. would i be correct in this? it seems to me like that is a natural law in the throughout history especially when it deals with religion. i was just wondering your interpretation on this situation that is developing down there, especially considering saudi arabia is bordered by jordan norwich's pro-western. i think benjamin netanyahu is a very good leader, but i just had that question about the mediterranean sea and its borders. guest: there are dozens of nations that border the mediterranean and i think it is a little bit too simplistic to
9:49am
say everett. to the north is a pro-western. there are different civilizations and a different religions. there's a long history of u.s. involvement. one thing we have no spoken about is, as we get below to morocco, algeria, tunisia, it is obama as africa policy. obama has been well liked in africa, but so was george bush. there was his aides initiative. -- aids initiative. it is too simplistic to say that the country's south of the mediterranean are anti-pro- western. the administration had long relationships with these countries. morocco was the first country to recognize the united states and we have a lot of political relationship with them. we have had long relationships with egypt, saudi arabia. we are involved in the
9:50am
democratic transition of many of these countries there. host: independent scholar from orlando, fla. caller: good morning. how are you? basically, we have a lot of drama going on in the middle east right now. how do you feel about world war iii possibly going on right now? guest: i do not think anyone would feel good about a world war iii. i think there is a fear of nuclear escalation. i do not think anyone wants to see iran develop a nuclear weapon. there's a fear that could really produce the arms race. an israeli attack on iran could escalate wider conflict and bring in other countries around the region. it is not just u.s., iran, and
9:51am
israel, but there are concerned about many of the neighbors in the region. turkey, saudi arabia, the gulf states. there is a concerted effort to prevent the world war iii. host: let's go to russia. before the elections, president obama was heard on a hot microphone telling dmitry medvedev that he would have more flexibility after the election. what was he referring to? host: -- guest: romney is sent one of his sons to speak to one of the aids of vladimir putin. policy someone gets frozen during an election. russian policy, in particular. president who was prime minister during that time and now is president again. the relationship with russia has been somewhat fractious lately. secretary of state hillary clinton accused the russians of
9:52am
ridding their election. there were concerned for these popular protests in moscow where there was great oppression by the government and who lashed out at the united states as well. -- and putin lashed out. one of the earlier policies was for a russian reset, and attempted to take a relationship that was good at one. that had turned very fractious and taken from a basic transactional relationship, just dealing with things as they came out, to building a new, strategic relationship in russia. that has somewhat broken down, i think. that's clear. the seminal part of the recent was a nuclear agreement, the new start treaty, the arms reduction treaty. but there was, at one point, a report that they wanted to push forward with for their nuclear reduction treaties, but there have been a lot of issues with regards to russia that are
9:53am
fractious, misfile defense, syrian policy. russia and china have been serious impediments in the u.n. security council to providing greater sanctions on syria. this is a relationship, i think, that needs work. host: democratic line, billy, and dallas, texas. caller: benghazi, one of the questions or statements i would like to make, it appears during the election that it was a main focus, as to why we did not get an immediate response to what was happening. if you really think about the fact that the united states itself, if there's a murder down the street, they use yellow tape and they have to do an investigation, all these rumors flying around that it was this, that come and the other. i just don't understand why there is such an emphasis on the
9:54am
media 100% reason benghazi happened without the opportunity of an investigation as to the rumors and everything else during that time. guest: it's a very good question. a lot of reporters and foreign policy people have been asking about. there is a significant amount of confusion as to why the administration seemed to make comments early on that suggested they thought it was a spontaneous attack. this was a time of great confusion. there was this anti-islamic web video that had come out and there were protests across the entire region in tunisia, yemen, egypt, pakistan. there is a great fear that there be a conflagration. protesters were outside embassies, storming the gates, raising flags of al qaeda. i believe an originally what
9:55am
happened was linked to this. the recordings out now that this was clearly a terrorist attack, it seems likely that it was spontaneous and there was no early warning. you bring up a very good point. there is an investigation going on and there will be hearings this week in washington that will hopefully paint a somewhat clearer picture. this is something for which there has not been a clearer information. host: republican caller in california. good morning. caller: i just wanted to ask a quick question. how do you fear -- feel about the uncertain economic atmosphere in some of the european countries? guest: the administration is certainly concerned. the president has sent timothy geithner to europe to endorse the austerity packages, the german focused in places like greece, spain, italy, strictures to bring down the budget to
9:56am
reduce spending and reduce welfare costs. the administration has made it clear, though quietly, that they want stimulus and growth packages as well. this was not something they really came up during the election campaign. there was a clear delineation between romney and obama that europe was a separate issue but the truth of it that the european economy is enormous and our trade relations are extensive. having a functioning in a stronger european economy is vital to the u.s. host: independent caller from florida. caller: hello. how're you doing, greta? mr. pauker, i think i disagree with just about everything you say. the obama administration is viewed by foreign countries as being incompetent. bullies do not resepct
9:57am
appeasers. there is backed military strength and strong leaders. that is obvious when we saw what happened in benghazi. we watched our ambassador and our man being systematically murdered and did nothing about it. talking to leaders like hugo chavez, castro, and now they say we have someone in there we can manipulate and control almost completely. in the mideast right no, it appears that his policies, and talking about president obama's policy, is to replace the existing rulers with al qaeda. that looks like the next victim will be assaad in syria. then we could be at war in iran to. host: let's let benjamin pauker
9:58am
respond. guest: the question of the american power projection is something that came up significantly during the campaign. there are concerns about that. in terms of military force, there is nothing that has significantly shrink. there will be some shrinking in the budget. there is a sequester coming up and perhaps some significant tightening of the budget. in terms of military force projection, it has not changed. one area in which i think there has been a struggle projection of forces in the asia-pacific region. the administration's pitted as the pentagon rebalance is to asia is where there are some significant trouble spots. the chinese military is building in significantly growing. there are some regional trouble spots for the u.s. and the obama administration has made a commitment allies and their military spending.
9:59am
have made a serious commitment to show additional force and interest in that. host: peter in des moines. caller: i was wondering if you could give us a scenario that it is real issues a surprise attack on iran -- if isreal issues a surprise attack, which could happen, will bebe trapped if they arbitrarily attack iran? guest: of opinion? . it's the to go to maine but i can really give some areas. if they were to attack that the u.s. may be drawn into a wider conflict. one can imagine that iran would italia it -- would retaliate in the u.s. would beal

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)